Way back in mid February — on the day she made the announcement that she would retire in 2024 — I wrote a piece with this headline: “Should Dianne Feinstein just resign?”
It included these lines:
Her retirement announcement doesn’t change anything that has been reported about her struggles. If Senators were telling the [San Francisco] Chronicle almost a year ago that they were worried about her capacity to do the job, it’s VERY unlikely those doubts have suddenly disappeared.
My conclusion was that Feinstein probably should step aside immediately — given the enormity of representing a state like California and her well-documented issues with memory.
Fast forward to this week where the whispers that Feinstein should step aside immediately have grown into shouts.
“It’s time for @SenFeinstein to resign,” tweeted California liberal Rep. Ro Khanna on Wednesday. “We need to put the country ahead of personal loyalty. While she has had a lifetime of public service, it is obvious she can no longer fulfill her duties. Not speaking out undermines our credibility as elected representatives of the people.”1
Khanna’s tweet was the consummation of weeks of Democratic grumbles over Feinstein, who has not been in Washington in nearly two months — as she battles complications from shingles. She has missed almost 60 votes over that time.
And, perhaps more importantly, Feinstein’s absence has made it more difficult for Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to approve federal judge appointments through their committee since, without the California Democrat, the committee is split 10-10 along partisan lines.
“I can't consider nominees in these circumstances because a tie vote is a losing vote in committee,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin told CBS News recently.
In the face of the rising resignation calls, Feinstein sought to buy herself more time.
“I understand that my absence could delay the important work of the Judiciary Committee,” Feinstein said in a statement released Wednesday night. “So I’ve asked Leader Schumer to ask the Senate to allow another Democratic senator to temporarily serve until I’m able to resume my committee work.”2
Which, well, fine.
Feinstein is clearly resistant to the idea of resigning, and is doing what she can to avoid it. This latest gambit comes after she announced last November that she would step down from her role as Judiciary Committee chair — and subsequently announced that she would retire from the Senate in February.
The goal of these incremental announcements from the Feinstein team was clearly to stave off the growing calls for her to simply resign. The thinking went that if she stepped down from the top job on Judiciary and then announced she wouldn’t be running again in 2024, that would be enough to keep her in office through 2024.
Because what’s abundantly clear is that Feinstein does not want to resign. She does not want the last chapter of her political life to be a forced resignation due to age and declining mental and physical health.
Which is understandable! She is, without question, one of the most consequential politicians in the history of California — and someone who has broken boundaries for women nationally as well.
As the Los Angeles Times Mark Z. Barabak wrote of Feinstein when she made her retirement announcement:
It would be tragic and wrong, however, to remember Feinstein as some kind of relic, as if we only remembered Willie Mays — another San Francisco icon — for the final years he spent stumbling around the outfield. She is not only the state’s longest-serving U.S. senator, she is one of the most meaningful and accomplished lawmakers Californians ever put in office.
Every one — politician or not — wants to go out on their own terms. No one wants to be forced from a job until they are ready to go.3
That’s especially true as you age — Feinstein is 89 — and it’s clear that this is your last job.
The problem for Feinstein is that she isn’t like the rest of us. Because she is one of two elected representatives of a state containing 39 million people. And one of 100 people serving in the Senate.
That reality means she necessarily operates under different rules. Because it’s not just about whether and when she wants to step aside but if she is doing the job she was elected to do — and that taxpayers are paying her to do.
The answer to that question seems to be a resounding “no.”
Which, again, is to not to take away from Feinstein’s substantial legacy. But it is a recognition that she no longer meets the requirements of the job.
In short: It’s time for Feinstein to step off the stage.
Minnesota Rep. Dean Phillips echoed Khanna’s call. “I believe it’s now a dereliction of duty to remain in the Senate and a dereliction of duty for those who agree to remain quiet,” he tweeted.
The mechanics of temporarily replacing Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee may well be complicated. Changes on committees require 60 votes in the Senate, meaning that Republicans would have to go along with the change. It’s not clear they will do that since it would allow Democrats to approve a slew of federal judges.
I, um, speak from experience.
RBG was the worst disaster like this. Many years of greatness thrown away at the end because she could not quit and let a Democrat replace her.
Sadly, she is placing herself above her country, her state, and even her political party and by doing so, she is doing a disservice to the country, her state, her party, and ultimately, herself.